1. Field of the Invention
This invention pertains generally to the field of animal husbandry, and more specifically to an apparatus to prevent an animal from biting or otherwise making oral contact and a method of making the apparatus. The most preferred embodiment pet hood of the present invention is configured to accommodate all types of pets, whether or not they have a snout.
2. Description of the Related Art
At various times, and for various reasons, the management of an animal's ability to bite or make oral contact is important. The animal may or may not, on a regular basis, require such management. As an example, and owing to circumstances that are out of the ordinary, the animal may behave unexpectedly. In such instances, an owner or care-giver who is aware of the possibility for the animal to behave undesirably may take advance precautions to preclude the animal from harming other creatures. In other situations, it may be desirable to prevent an animal from contacting other objects and entities with the animal's mouth. At times, this will include such activities as feeding, self-grooming, or a myriad of other activities that are engaged in by the animal. These activities may sometimes be normal and acceptable for the animal, but for various reasons the owner or care-giver may choose to prevent or inhibit such activity. One such example is the self-grooming that many animals engage in. Self-grooming is normally desired and preferred. However, there are times when a dog may develop an infection that does not heal normally. As is well known, the dog will tend to lick the sore repeatedly, and, in so doing, makes the sore worse. In such an instance, the owner will prefer to inhibit the animal from oral contact with the sore. Another example of an undesired activity occurs during the grooming of pets. Even the most well behaved of pets may behave erratically or dangerously during a grooming session. Depending upon the animal, such erratic behavior can seriously endanger the groomer or others in close proximity to the pet. As yet another example, some horses are prone to very undesirable nipping or biting of creatures around them. The horse may otherwise behave admirably. In such instances or in other circumstances, a person may desire to restrain the animal from such behavior.
Unfortunately the restraint of an animal may in some instances only aggravate an already difficult situation. Being frightened is a reasonable response to a strange person such as a groomer who may be armed with scissors and clippers, or to a veterinarian who may be armed with various needles and other frightening devices. An animal that is frightened needs to be consoled. However, some proposed designs of restraints involve covering an animal's eyes. Such coverings lead to extremely unpredictable behavior, and in some instances make the animal much more difficult to manage.
The vast majority of the techniques used to prevent an animal from making oral contact involve only covering the animal's mouth. This avoids the risk of unpredictable behavior associated with eye cover. A large body of patents describe various apparatus using the mouth covering, including U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,298,265 to Ashby; 2,073,511 to Brownson; 1,468,416 to Rasmussen; 1,362,276 to Waltner; 1,311,933 to Weigel; 1,300,977 to Kehr; 1,297,753 to Twitchell; 1,175,033 to Williams; 1,070,914 and 1,110,232 to Raveling; 1,052,749 to Peelman; 960,142 to Anctil; 929,415 to Ewer; and 66,840 to Howe. While a covering limited to the animal's mouth at first seems ideal, when an animal without a snout is to be restrain, the limitations of such coverings become very apparent. For example, a cat which is to be groomed cannot be retrained using the muzzles available, since these muzzles are designed to wrap about or anchor upon the extended snout of a dog or horse. A cat does not have such a snout, and the muzzle will readily slip off of the cat's mouth. At this moment, the cat may be both frightened and agitated, and the behavior will be very undesirable. In the case of cats and groomers, it is also well-known that the bite from the cat can be very harmful and dangerous, owing to the potential for very difficult-to-treat infections. Because of this danger and the present lack of suitable techniques for ensuring the safety of the groomer, many animal groomers will not groom cats.
A variety of muzzles that use different manufacturing techniques and materials have been designed to restrain oral contact by an animal, as aforementioned. Wire cages, various meshes and fabrics, and even chains and heavy metal lattice work or metal frames have been developed. As will be readily apparent, the use of heavy metal lattice work, metal frames, or chains is completely unacceptable for many of the aforementioned problems that need to be addressed. That metal, when placed about the animal's snout, will be very nearly as dangerous as the unrestrained animal. This metal may be moved rapidly by the animal when the animal is frightened, and anyone who is close enough to be struck or pinned by the metal is in much danger. Furthermore, as is known in the field of animal husbandry, irrespective of the type of muzzle there is a risk of contact. Consequently, such restraints are generally undesirable.
In addition to the limitations of the apparatus of the prior art, the methods used to manufacture those muzzles introduces significant additional limitations. Exemplary of these manufacturing techniques are U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,256,625 to Westfall, which illustrates a twisted wire muzzle; and 5,299,531 to Dietz, which illustrates a stitched fabric muzzle. As may be apparent, the equipment and labor required to twist the wire of Westfall are substantial. Similarly, the stitching of the Dietz patent also requires substantial labor, and ultimately leads to a point of premature failure, generally well before the fabric has deteriorated.